Althouse: "New Justice Department Documents Show Huge Increase in Warrantless Electronic Surveillance."

September 27, 2012

"New Justice Department Documents Show Huge Increase in Warrantless Electronic Surveillance."

The ACLU reports on "documents, handed over by the government only after months of litigation."

121 comments:

campy said...: Is this "hope" or "change"?; 9/27/12, 7:53 PM
Known Unknown said...: I just had my telescreen installed. Looks nice. ; ); 9/27/12, 7:57 PM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: I blame everyone who voted for Obama.; 9/27/12, 7:57 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: Gotta make sure that no one is slandering the Prophet out there on the intertubes.; 9/27/12, 7:59 PM
Carnifex said...: As a play on the obvious troll meme:

Facist Dictator behaves like a facist.

Or how about:

Facism corrupts, absolute facism corrupts absolutely.

Or just a simple:

"Told ya' so", will do.; 9/27/12, 7:59 PM
SteveR said...: No doubt its Bush's fault. ACLU members will still vote for Obama and go pray for the death of Scalia; 9/27/12, 8:00 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/27/12, 8:00 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: The collective left might care if Bush were in the White House.

Now? Come blindly worship Lord Zero. He's destroyed the economy, he lies about everything, and he's going to raise taxes and kill 2 million more jobs during a full on recession. A shout out to the glorious ObamaCare taxes that are about the kick the middle class in the nuts.; 9/27/12, 8:01 PM
Chip S. said...: No doubt its Bush's fault.

Well, it is. As you can plainly see from the chart, Obama inherited this rate of acceleration from Bush.; 9/27/12, 8:04 PM
Chip S. said...: Also, It could have been worse!; 9/27/12, 8:06 PM
Mr. D said...: Don't worry about it. Nate Silver says we can all go to sleep now because the election is over.; 9/27/12, 8:06 PM
MadisonMan said...: Benjamin Franklin's quote on Security and Freedom comes to mind.; 9/27/12, 8:07 PM
Beorn said...: All I need to know is how this is all GW Bush's fault.; 9/27/12, 8:08 PM
garage mahal said...: The only reason this bothers me is because a Democrat is in the White House.; 9/27/12, 8:10 PM
Lyle said...: This is the product of Machine Politics... i.e. progressive politics.; 9/27/12, 8:12 PM
edutcher said...: If Der Fuhrer, ooops, Obama knew about this, he'd stop it.

After all, he's a Conlawprof.; 9/27/12, 8:14 PM
chickelit said...: Every graph of alleged importance looks like a hockey stick these days. Are we headed somewhere important and uncharted?; 9/27/12, 8:15 PM
chickelit said...: Soon enough we will be overtaken by demographic charts showing deaths of baby boomers. These too will look like hockey sticks.; 9/27/12, 8:17 PM
Anonymous said...: At the WH, all evening and to-night, the Beethoven Ode to Joy is being played over and over again.

ROMNEY has lost it. The UNANIMOUS decision by the our best friends, the NYT, WashPost, etc., has made every-one in Chicago HQ, So Happy, So Happy.

THE GREATEST AND BEST POTUS IN ALL OF USA HISTORY IS GOING TO BE RE-ELECTED BY THE WIDEST MARGIN EVER.

Mt. Rushmore, here comes BHO!; 9/27/12, 8:17 PM
chickelit said...: Even Obama's popularity is said to be surging and accelerating. His inTrade numbers are "off the charts."; 9/27/12, 8:18 PM
Robert Cook said...: "I blame everyone who voted for Obama."

"No doubt its Bush's fault."

Well, those who voted for Obama assumed he would not follow Bush's lead, so it's not fair to blame them for Obama's ramping up of illegal surveillance that Bush first bragged about, (after the NYTimes revealed, against the Bush Administration's wishes, that they were conducting illegal wiretapping of Americans).

Who can say if the illegal surveillance we're now learning of began with Bush or was going on earlier, but it came to light with Bush and his supporters cheered him for declaring he was doing it and would keep doing it. Bush certainly can be blamed, and now Obama (and his supporters) are to be blamed for expanding it and accepting or ignoring it, respectively.

I didn't vote for Obama because I expected he would betray his promises (and his followers). He has done so, but to a much greater extreme than I really expected, and, of course, I won't be voting for him again. His followers will, thinking Romney would be worse--not a baseless supposition, but also not a certainty, as we already know just how bad Obama has been, while Romney, a simulacrum of a human being, is still an unknown quantity.

It's certain that whoever of these two wretched candidates wins, the American public will lose.; 9/27/12, 8:19 PM
Known Unknown said...: The only reason this bothers me is because a Democrat is in the White House.

Yeah, don't address the chart at all. Not important.; 9/27/12, 8:19 PM
tacotaco said...: HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA if this were bush you all would be THRILLED.

and talk about how likable he is.; 9/27/12, 8:22 PM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/27/12, 8:29 PM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: Althouse,
Make sure you earmark this for your "How Obama Lost Me" post.; 9/27/12, 8:29 PM
Chip S. said...: HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA if this were bush you all would be THRILLED.

and talk about how likable he is.

And here we have yet another example of the bizarre impulse among Obots to ascribe to their opponents behavior they decry, when it's behavior that they--and primarily they--engage in regularly.

Has there ever been such clear evidence of mass psychosis in the US before?; 9/27/12, 8:32 PM
Eric said...: Wow! It's almost like all that outrage over Bush-era warrantless wiretapping was election year bullshit to fool the gullible. You know... Democrats.; 9/27/12, 8:32 PM
yashu said...: HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA if this were bush you all would be THRILLED.

and talk about how likable he is.

And you yourself? What do you think-- about the present actuality, not the imagined counterfactual hypothetical? And what did you think, when Bush was POTUS, about related reports concerning electronic surveillance, Patriot Act etc. (in which however, as this shows, Bush was a piker compared to Obama, but had the media magnifying such things by 10X at least).

I trust your evaluation of Bush at the time is consistent with your evaluation of Obama now?

Way to focus on the imaginary, counterfactual, and superseded past, and ignore the actual present reality.; 9/27/12, 8:33 PM
garage mahal said...: We're all Glenn Greenwald now.; 9/27/12, 8:34 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I'm suspicious..

Are they massaging those numbers by including the so called Obama phones?

Its a phoney chart.; 9/27/12, 8:35 PM
sakredkow said...: I always thought the ACLU was a good idea.; 9/27/12, 8:38 PM
yashu said...: We're all Glenn Greenwald now.

Well garage, like I said to taco, it's all very well to accuse others of hypocrisy.

But what do you think? You haven't expressed what you yourself think, about this (in particular as compared to actions by Bush-- as this shows, dwarfed in comparison to Obama's).; 9/27/12, 8:40 PM
Eric said...: >We're all Glenn Greenwald now.

Does that mean we can all bill ourselves as constitutional scholars even though we've only had short, unremarkable careers as litigators?; 9/27/12, 8:42 PM
Anonymous said...: FAREED ZAKARIA FROM CNN AND WASHPOST WILL BE IN THE 2ND TERM ADMINISTRATION.

WE ARE CONSIDERING HIM FOR THESE POSITIONS:

- DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER

- WHITE HOUSE LIAISON TO MUSLIMS AND ISLAM

- DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE

- SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE POTUS

- DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF

NB: WE ARE ALSO CONSIDERING JEFFREY TOOMEY AS THE AG OR SOLICITOR GENERAL.; 9/27/12, 8:44 PM
Bryan C said...: "It's certain that whoever of these two wretched candidates wins, the American public will lose."

I really have no idea why you think Romney is so wretched on civil liberties. How many wiretaps and drone attacks has he ordered? How many filmmakers has he had arrested? How many wars has Mitt started?; 9/27/12, 8:45 PM
Bryan C said...: "It's certain that whoever of these two wretched candidates wins, the American public will lose."

I really have no idea why you think Romney is so wretched on civil liberties. How many wiretaps and drone attacks has he ordered? How many filmmakers has he had arrested? How many wars has Mitt started?; 9/27/12, 8:50 PM
garage mahal said...: yashu
I think I've been consistent on civil libertarian issues. Obama is horrible , and Congress is the body that gave him these powers. It would fertile ground to whack Obama but Republicans are complicit in the whole thing too.; 9/27/12, 8:55 PM
PatCA said...: Looking for more people who are a "danger to society." Whew, I feel safer.

Obama cares!

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Man-Believed-to-be-Producer-of-Anti-Islam-Film-in-Custody-in-Los-Angeles-171611071.html; 9/27/12, 8:56 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Thanks, Robert Cook! "Simulacrum" is one of those words I've been meaning to look up. One comes across it infrequently, and usually only in prolix prose.

So Romney's not human? or are you being tendentious or hyperbolic?; 9/27/12, 9:01 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: For the record, I don't have a real problem with it, just as I didn't with Bush.

But the hypocrisy warms my heart.; 9/27/12, 9:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama is only doing what Bush did, fighting terror! Why is it different when he does it, because he is a Democrat? Former Senator Feingold had strong opinions on this, too bad he's no longer in the Senate.; 9/27/12, 9:02 PM
Mark said...: I think I've been consistent on civil libertarian issues. Obama is horrible , and Congress is the body that gave him these powers. It would fertile ground to whack Obama but Republicans are complicit in the whole thing too.

Which party controlled Congress from 2006-2010?

And now, when Congress doesn't bend over for Obama, (a) Congress is called "obstructionist" and (b) Obama does what he wants anyway.; 9/27/12, 9:02 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: For the record, I don't have a real problem with it, just as I didn't with Bush.

But the hypocrisy warms my heart.; 9/27/12, 9:03 PM
Mark said...: So if Bush did it, and Obama does it, only more so, it's okay, Inga?

Why? Seriously, I'm not getting it.; 9/27/12, 9:05 PM
ALH said...: Most transparent administration evah.; 9/27/12, 9:09 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Lets go back and read how this program leaked/came about..

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts Dec 16 2005..

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

You would think that when this program was conceived - closer in time to the reason why it was created 9/11 - the chart should be in reverse.

Some of you may remember, when it leaked out in the NYT, how controversial it was that Bush was listing in our conversations...

So, imagine my surprise to see that as Al Qaeda has grown weaker (Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive) the eavesdropping has gotten stronger.

Whats wrong with this picture?

Or more correctly.. whats right with this picture?

Is it possible that it is not a coincidence that the mission to finally get Bin Laden came after the 3rd request for presidential approval?

Is it possible that the degrees of separation between the folks whose job is to worry about job approval ratings and the folks handling surveillance approvals are not that far apart?

Who was it that was leaking so much information that prompted Defense Secretary Gates to personally tell some people at the White House to "shut the fuck up".; 9/27/12, 9:12 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I meant to say Bush was listening.. not listing.

What I'm trying to say, as clearly as I can... is that chart makes more sense when you tie it to the president's reelection efforts.; 9/27/12, 9:19 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: If Obama wins look for a precipitous drop.; 9/27/12, 9:21 PM
edutcher said...: If I remember, the people who scremed loudest about the PATRIOT Act were Conservatives and Libertarians worried about exactly this sort of thing.

Inga said...

Obama is only doing what Bush did, fighting terror! Why is it different when he does it, because he is a Democrat?

Because Dubya actually got it done - he gutted Al Qaeda in Iraq and threw out the Taliban in A-stan.

Zero wanted to show he was so much smarter so he wanted to outdo Dubya with a surge in A-stan, but ended up doing what Willie did for Somalia. He also allowed AQ to reconstitute itself because Choom was more interested in bragging he got this No 2 here than digging out the organization on the ground.; 9/27/12, 9:21 PM
Wince said...: FORWARD; 9/27/12, 9:24 PM
Revenant said...: Inga and Garage fill an important role in society -- specifically, reminding people that when Democrats claim to care about civil liberties, they do so strictly as a cynical ploy to win votes.

At heart, they agree with those dastardly "neo-cons" that violations of civil liberties are an excellent idea. :); 9/27/12, 9:33 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Althouse,
Make sure you earmark this for your "How Obama Lost Me" post.

Nice catch Ruth Ann.

But I think the professor will concoct some scheme along the lines... something to the effect that an Obama win will translate into a better chance of compromise in the congress where as a Romney Ryan win would not.

Thats were I'm suspecting hurricane Althouse is going to go..

I'm taking shelter just in case ;); 9/27/12, 9:34 PM
Carnifex said...: I've got to admit I never understood the left's assertion,"Bush did it too", with it's variation, "Bush started it". And yet the left never liked what Bush did. But when Zero does it plus a little more, the defense is "Bush yadda yadda yadda"

1) Bush is no longer President. Neither is Clinton, Taft, Lincoln, etc. There is only one desk the buck stops at, and that's Zero's.

2) If you worship Zero for doing MORE of what Bush did, but continue to deny that the only reason it is okay for Zero to continue Bush's policies is because he's your guy, then you are a hypocrite. Period, dot, end of sentence.

3) If you look deep in your hearts, and you believed the platitudes you been spouting for decades, then you MUST hate ZERO, because he has shown that no matter the number of platitudes you spout, and how deeply you believe in them, when the rubber meets the road, the conservatives were right all along. Always.

So go shout at some more cops to try to get them to brutalize you, or disrupt a churches worship(but never an Islamic one) You know, as we have always known, you lie. You lie to aggrandize yourself. And that is why the left is always always angry.; 9/27/12, 9:35 PM
Joe C. said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/27/12, 9:39 PM
Joe C. said...: Are we in friggin' East Germany?; 9/27/12, 9:39 PM
Sorun said...: "Why is it different when he does it, because he is a Democrat?"

Here's why Obama is different: He made it a campaign issue in 2008. Obama: No warrentless wiretaps if you elect me.

So then they actually accelerate under Obama.; 9/27/12, 9:45 PM
sakredkow said...: Here's why Obama is different: He made it a campaign issue in 2008. Obama: No warrentless wiretaps if you elect me.

It's funny though. You read that article and he's not actually quoted as saying that.; 9/27/12, 9:49 PM
Paul said...: Progressives are the new Nazis.

Simple as that.

Now note a Progressive is NOT a liberal (though they lean in the same direction.)

And a Progressive is NOT a conservative (but again, on some issues they do lean in the same direction.)

And a Progressive as NOTHING in common with a libertarian.

When I said Nazi, I meant it cause the Nazi party was the 'National Socialist' party in Germany.

A cold blooded socialist who valued the state more than the citizen. And that is a Progressive.

To them it's ok to murder a few to 'protect' the masses. And they get to decide who is murdered to protect whom.; 9/27/12, 10:00 PM
Sorun said...: "It's funny though. You read that article and he's not actually quoted as saying that."

True, he's not directly quoted. The author reported that Obama said that.

"For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said."; 9/27/12, 10:03 PM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/27/12, 10:08 PM
McTriumph said...: Gee, I'm confused I thought Bush was Hitler.; 9/27/12, 10:15 PM
David said...: He loved Big Brother.; 9/27/12, 10:22 PM
David said...: Remember, Obama inherited this system.; 9/27/12, 10:23 PM
Carnifex said...: Just another Left wing goof hockey stick graph, hey boys! You guys sure do like 'em. That and the ones indicating the economy is tanking still.(you must love that one, you love the guy whose policies abet it)

You're no longer considered opponents. You're just a bunch of goofs.; 9/27/12, 10:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama is Hitler, Bush was Mussolini, get it straight.; 9/27/12, 10:23 PM
Known Unknown said...: I for one, would love repeal of the Patriot Act.

The job is to not fight the war of terror on your own citizens.; 9/27/12, 10:25 PM
Anonymous said...: EMD, what about non citizens as Chickelit asked about in another thread?; 9/27/12, 10:28 PM
Sorun said...: Obama is W.C. Fields. Biden is Stan Laurel.; 9/27/12, 10:30 PM
SteveR said...: Under the bus with all the folks who carried Obama's water, only to become inconvenient to keep around, lie the broken promises of the 2008 version of Obama.

I have more respect for someone who votes for him expecting he'll buy them a cell phone.; 9/27/12, 10:31 PM
john said...: Inga said...
Obama is Hitler, Bush was Mussolini, get it straight.

Good for you Allie. I knew you had it in you, it just took a little effort to get it out.

Everything will be easier for you now.; 9/27/12, 10:47 PM
McTriumph said...: We get what we deserve. I think everyone should vote for Obama, land slide. Let's bring all this shit to a head. Freedom or the state. If we go all state and fix that war on women thing, is the state going to pay some gal to come over and blow me on friday afternoons?; 9/27/12, 10:48 PM
bagoh20 said...: You really need a "Fen's law" tag, but then every 3rd post would need it.

That's not a criticism - it's just the state of the nation.; 9/27/12, 10:49 PM
Chip S. said...: is the state going to pay some gal to come over and blow me on friday afternoons?

Absolutely. And you'll have your choice of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or the Obamaphone lady.

Sandra Fluke will be reserved for major donors.; 9/27/12, 10:51 PM
bagoh20 said...: You really need a "Fen's law" tag, but then every 3rd post would need it.

That's not a criticism - it's just the state of the nation.; 9/27/12, 10:54 PM
purplepenquin said...: I blame everyone who voted for Obama

No doubt its Bush's fault.

You're both right. And looking at the advisers Romney has surrounded himself with, it is pretty obvious the chart will continue to go up if he is elected in Nov.

Only way to make it stop is vote third/fourth party. It's not a quick solution, but our history has shown that massive upheavals...from Woman's Suffrage to the passage and repeal of Prohibition...has been brought about due to the influence of "alternative" political parties.; 9/27/12, 10:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Michael Kors Classic ToteRecognized as one of America's preeminent designers of luxury sportswear and accessories, Michael Kors Bags Outlet produces chic and sophisticated sportswear emblematic of the jet-set lifestyle.; 9/27/12, 10:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't worry, Garbage...I'm sure all this stomping down on freedom by YOUR president will save your precious, precious daughter.

lol.; 9/27/12, 11:15 PM
Geoff Matthews said...: If I didn't know better, I'd say Obama is worse than Bush.; 9/27/12, 11:21 PM
yashu said...: To garage's credit, I do recall him criticizing Obama very strongly not too long ago, along these or related lines (though that was an exceptional occasion, which is why I remember it). So he has shown some consistency on these issues.

I wish you'd do that more often, garage. Spend less time just snarking about the motes you perceive in conservatives' eyes (sarcastically mocking the other sides' partisanship, as if your own one-sided snarking was non-partisan), and more time directly expressing your own opinions on the issues at hand. Whether those opinions fall in line with Dem talking points, or not.; 9/27/12, 11:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't worry Whore, I bet Karma will send some heinous disease your way sooner, than later, leprosy maybe? Or a flesh eating Staph infection perhaps?; 9/27/12, 11:35 PM
Richard said...: 2000 - 2008 = OUTRAGOUS
2008 - 2012 = outragous; 9/28/12, 12:03 AM
Anonymous said...: @Inga:

Bitch, if there were any karma, you and all of your lefty friends would be dropped at an our next embassy 5 MINUTES before its overrun.

With orders from Mein Obama that you are not allowed to use deadly force, since that's racist.

Karma's not real, you lying whore.; 9/28/12, 12:16 AM
Anonymous said...: How do YOU know Whore, just wait......; 9/28/12, 12:27 AM
Levi Starks said...: shhhhhhhh.; 9/28/12, 12:33 AM
Levi Starks said...: shhhhhhhh.; 9/28/12, 12:34 AM
Cedarford said...: Robert Cook - I expected he would betray his promises (and his followers). He has done so, but to a much greater extreme than I really expected, and, of course, I won't be voting for him again. His followers will, thinking Romney would be worse--not a baseless supposition, but also not a certainty, as we already know just how bad Obama has been, while Romney, a simulacrum of a human being, is still an unknown quantity."

Here's a thought for you, Cook.
Many times the laws and systems are in place for some really bad shit to go down in a country, but it seems that in order for the worst, you need a Leader who is:

1. Known to lie repeatedly on issues, knowing he is perfectly safe to BECAUSE:
2. He has erected a Cult of Personality that he calculates has enough ferverent followers entralled by his words that they will keep him in power no matter what.
3. The Leader has to be somewhat cold and aloof.
4. Adept at tactics of demonizing his foe, which the pathological leader does because anyone opposing him is obviously bad, ignorant, blocking the Great Leader from the Transformation.
5. Has such a loyalty and devotion of his Cult that if he simply says a rival is an enemy, bad, blocking Change.....that is enough for his Cult to also hate.
6. Has no real values/morals other than a narcissistic self-reverence and perhaps a belief in One Great Societal shift only someone as great as he can accomplish. All other values and morals mean little next to the need to have the power to serve those personal cravings.
7. Charismatic.

Obama scores on all counts.
Romney...well he is cold and aloof, but the other 6 requirements?
Nope.

Consider the list of Leaders that hit all 7 criteria.

1. Lenin.
2. The Kims of N Korea.
3. Castro.
4. Mao.
5. Hitler
6. Robespierre
7. Marat.
8. Idi Amin
9. Jim Jones.
More often than not, they come from the Left...because conservatives generally don't roll that way.

Messiah has lied and been generally incopetent. Yet his followers worship and love him no different than when Stalin blamed his 2nd big 5 Year Plans failure on counter-revolutionaries still infected with Czarist and bourgeoise thinking.; 9/28/12, 1:08 AM
Anonymous said...: @Inga the Obama Whore:

How do YOU know Whore

---Because Joseph Stalin Vladimir Lenin, and Mao ZeDng all died fat and happy despite murdering and oppressing millions.

Oh wait, you consider them to be good people, right, totalitarian?

Karma doesn't exist, you lying New Age bitch.; 9/28/12, 1:09 AM
Anonymous said...: P.S.: the typical Obama supporter! Violent, stupid, rude, and demanding free handouts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio&feature=player_embedded#!

Behold, the people Inga the Lying Obama Whore worships! She gots a phones, yo!; 9/28/12, 1:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Tick, tick, tick, time is passing Whore, wait for it.; 9/28/12, 1:22 AM
Rich Rostrom said...: Robert Cook: the surveillance in question wasn't illegal now, nor was it under Bush.

The courts have repeatedly ruled that there is no right of privacy in information about communications which is voluntarily given to third party carriers.

E-mail addresses and dialed phone numbers are such information.

The reported increase in such surveillance of electronic communications is IMO due to such communications becoming more common, and such surveillance becoming much easier.

Compare the cost of obtaining a list of phone numbers connected to by a suspect with the cost of a week's physical surveillance of a suspect's movement.

The chart posted by Ms. Althouse reveals some of the reality. For instance, "trap and trace" Internet orders increased 16-fold from 2008 to 2011. That's because they were first used in 2008, and only 50 were issued that year. Internet "pen register" orders were first issued in 2004, and it appears that hardly anyone used them until 2007, and that it wasn't until 2010-2011 that many Federal LEOs started using them.

It's quite possible that this was because of the Obama administration. Obama appointees are probably younger and more Internet-aware than Bush's appointees were.

Only about 1,600 of these orders were used in 2011, which is not very many on the national scale. (How many investigations are Federal agencies running each year?)

One can expect substantial further increases in these orders, as they become standard procedures in a substantial fraction of investigations.

The time to raise alarm will be when the issuance of such orders exceeds the realistic needs of investigators, or when such orders are issued against persons having nothing to do with criminal investigations for the private interests of Federal officials.; 9/28/12, 1:43 AM
Anonymous said...: @Ing athe lying Obama Whore:

(smiles)

It will happen to me when you report your being shipped airfreight to the American embassy in Iran. With your daughter.

tick....tick....tick...; 9/28/12, 2:53 AM
Revenant said...: I need to dig up that blogger filter plug-in I used to have. Too many trolls around here these days.; 9/28/12, 2:58 AM
Carnifex said...: @Rich R

You mean like when Zero's IRS, or DOJ go after prominent Romney supporters?

Gotcha'; 9/28/12, 3:25 AM
DEEBEE said...: It started going up the same years that Dems took over the Congress!; 9/28/12, 5:05 AM
kentuckyliz said...: I wish someone would care enough to call me a lying whore.

Apparently I'm not crawling far enough out on the limb.

I also like the old SNL "Jane you ignorant slut" except you have to customize the name.

I say let's go to the Chestnut Tree and have a bottle of Victory Gin and find freedom in submission.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength; 9/28/12, 5:47 AM
Toad Trend said...: This is what CHANGE looks like!!!; 9/28/12, 6:01 AM
AllenS said...: This is what the camel's nose, head, neck and front shoulders look like when you're sitting in a tent. Four more years of this, and the whole camel will be in the tent with you.; 9/28/12, 6:39 AM
Mick said...: I guess the delusional willfully blind Obama lickers are OK w/ that. They certainly exhibit the signs of being hypnotized, fervently denying reality (except the story told to them by the Usurper and his handlers), and seemingly asleep.

So the golfer in charge is like a little boy, able to get what he wants and do what he wants, including sitting in his room and pushing a button to blow up anyone in his little video game.

Up is down and black is white. There is no reality when the toadies fix everything. There is no law, and no constitution when the POTUS is illegal.; 9/28/12, 6:56 AM
Rusty said...: Most transparent administration evah!!!

Ktkyliz you lying whore.
And I mean that in the best possible way, because you work out and could snap me like a butter bean.; 9/28/12, 6:57 AM
Farmer said...: Paul said...
Progressives are the new Nazis.

Simple as that.

Right!; 9/28/12, 6:58 AM
Mick said...: Richard said...

"2000 - 2008 = OUTRAGOUS
2008 - 2012 = outragous"

Richard said...

2000 - 2008 = OUTRAGEOUS
2008 - 2012 = OUTRAGEOUSER
Fixed it!!; 9/28/12, 7:00 AM
Tank said...: Just add to list of things not important unless Repub's in power.

Warrantless snooping.
Homeless.
Drones.
War.
Assasinations.
Etc.

End of story.; 9/28/12, 7:18 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "I didn't vote for Obama because I expected he would betray his promises (and his followers)."

-- The first major decision of his presidential campaign was to not accept the limits of public financing, despite promising John McCain that he would do so.

And you expected him to not lie to you? Why, did you think you were special? That he would treat you better than all the other people he had been mean to? Did you think you could change him?; 9/28/12, 7:45 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "Why is it different when he does it, because he is a Democrat?"

-- No. The point is to point out blatant hypocrisy, which is apparently only a crime when Republicans do it. Were these numbers under a Republican, we'd have endless stories about it. Sort of like how the news stopped running photos of caskets at Dover Air Force Base and keeping a grim tally of the war dead every night.

It's just more proof for why the media is unserious and why we should not take Democrats complaints seriously.; 9/28/12, 7:50 AM
gerry said...: Meh. Progressives. Obama. What did anyone expect? Besides, as Inga keeps saying, "WE ARE AT WAR!"

All deprecations of liberty are justified, eh?; 9/28/12, 7:54 AM
KCFleming said...: Ever wonder what people felt like in Beijing in 1949 as Mao took over?

The hope was high, to be sure. Some anxiety about the future in some, though.

Some 50-60 million would die in the coming years. No exact tally. Just a statistic, no tragedy.

Anyway, the feeling right now is 1949 China, plus a few years.

It's not alarmist to note what's coming true.; 9/28/12, 8:13 AM
Robert Cook said...: "The first major decision of his presidential campaign was to not accept the limits of public financing, despite promising John McCain that he would do so.

"And you expected him to not lie to you? Why, did you think you were special? That he would treat you better than all the other people he had been mean to? Did you think you could change him?"

Are you referring to me? If so, I'd suggest you reread the comment of mine from which you posted an excerpt.

Or, let me just make it clear, as per my comment: I-did-not-vote-for-Obama-because-I-expected-him-to-betray-his-promises-and-his-followers.

For me, the tip-off was when he voted for the revised FISA law that gave the government greater discretion in conducting warrantless wiretaps and which also extended retroactive protection to the telecoms for their prior cooperative participation in Bush's illegal wiretapping. Obama had promised not only to vote against the bill if it contained this gift of indemnity for the telecoms' criminal acts, but to support a filibuster against the bill. However, he quietly did neither, and voted for the bill as written. (I think he or some of his people may have said something to the effect that he wanted to be able to provide the US government with the tools it needed to fight terrorism and, as President, he would revisit the bill to "fix" those parts of it that were troubling. You know, the typical lying bullshit.)

If a candidate for President so blatantly breaks a promise before he has won office, only a credulous fool would believe he will display greater fidelity to his many promises once he's secured the seat of power! Especially as his subsequent victory would--and did--confirm to him that he could break his promises with impunity!; 9/28/12, 9:02 AM
Robert Cook said...: Rich Rostrum: "The time to raise alarm will be when the issuance of such orders exceeds the realistic needs of investigators, or when such orders are issued against persons having nothing to do with criminal investigations for the private interests of Federal officials."

Rich, I disagree with your entire comment, but this concluding sentence reveals your own blindness to the issue. Without a warrant issued by a judge, based on evidence presented before him or her, how do we--how does anyone--know whether or when any surveillance of electronic communications "exceeds the realistic needs of investigators" or whether or when "such orders are issued against persons having nothing to do with criminal investigations for the private interests of Federal officials?"

Simply put, we don't and can't. The warrant is the only safeguard against the abuse of investigative power by the authorities. "Trust us" is not a basis for permitting the authorities their prerogatives.; 9/28/12, 9:19 AM
Sofa King said...: Or, let me just make it clear, as per my comment: I-did-not-vote-for-Obama-because-I-expected-him-to-betray-his-promises-and-his-followers.

Cook, it's ambiguous if you are saying that you did not vote for Obama, and it was for that reason, or whether you are saying that you voted for Obama, but not for that reason.; 9/28/12, 9:28 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Thanks, Robert Cook! 'Simulacrum' is one of those words I've been meaning to look up. One comes across it infrequently, and usually only in prolix prose.

"So Romney's not human? or are you being tendentious or hyperbolic?"

Obviously I'm being hyperbolic.

Almost certainly Romney is human, but he has that a plastic, local newscaster look and demeanor, as if whatever genuine human feeling he may have or have had has been tamped down so far inside him that what is left is someone trying hard to remind himself how to present himself so as to appear human.

More to the point, he's a rich guy from a privileged background trying very hard to act like just a regular joe.; 9/28/12, 10:51 AM
Robert Cook said...: I did not vote for Obama, and I will not vote for him again, or, rather, I will--again--not vote for him.

I voted for a third party candidate in 2008 and will do so again this year.; 9/28/12, 10:53 AM
Aridog said...: Robert Cook said...

I voted for a third party candidate in 2008 and will do so again this year.

Okay. So you DID effectively vote for Obama. I apologize if my viewpoint favors results versus theory.; 9/28/12, 11:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh good, I'm not the only lying whore here, Liz welcome to the club! I think Whore may have called Synova one yesterday, so she's in too.; 9/28/12, 1:08 PM
Aridog said...: Inga...pay attention! Liz is "you ignorant slut" ... not "the lying whore."; 9/28/12, 1:23 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Okay. So you DID effectively vote for Obama."

No, I voted for a candidate I preferred, who happened to NOT be either Obama or his opponent, just as I will do in November.; 9/28/12, 1:46 PM
purplepenquin said...: Okay. So you DID effectively vote for Obama

No, he effectively voted for the person he voted for. Given the way the laws&rules are stacked against 3rd/4th parties when it comes to ballot access, invites to debates, etc etc, a vote for one of those parties has a much greater effect than a vote for Repubs or Dems, especially in Federal Elections.

I apologize if my viewpoint favors results versus theory.

It ain't a theory: Voting 3rd/4th party has been shown to have had results.

Keep in mind, if everybody always thought that a Third Party vote is a wasted vote then there wouldn't be a Republican Party today...; 9/28/12, 1:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Aridog, DadVocate called Liz a lying whore @6:39 AM, but hey she can have "ignorant slut" and I'll keep my spot as "lying whore". ;); 9/28/12, 2:00 PM
Aridog said...: Purple penguin .... you are speaking in generalities about "results" and 3rd or 4th parties. I was referring specifically to the results vis a vis the two leading parties. I think you know that...this isn't the parliamentary UK or Canada or Greece, et al.,(yet).

Let's be specific...say Geo H W Bush versus Bill Clinton in 1992. Did the 3rd party candidate, Perot, impact the results of that election? If so, how? In whose favor?

The electoral count **appears** unaffected, but the state by state popular vote is significantly impacted....which in turn effects electoral counts. Clinton won a scant 43% of the popular votes, but carried 370 electoral votes.

I'd not change the electoral system, since I'm not in favor of rule by the coastal elites...however, you simply cannot say that the 3rd party didn't help Clinton.

Any 3rd party now will help Obama in the same fashion. hence my position that a 3rd party vote is a vote for Obama.; 9/28/12, 3:54 PM
purplepenquin said...: you are speaking in generalities about "results" and 3rd or 4th parties

I was trying to be specific by mentioning Suffrage and Prohibition. Abolishing slavery was also the result of people voting for a third party.

It doesn't always happen by winning the election, but rather one/both of the two major parties take notice of what issues are leading voters to seek answers elsewhere and then adopting those issues as their own to bring 'em back.

When both of the two-parties basically agree on a policy/core-beleif...such as these civil liberties being discussed...this is the only option available to bring about change. 'cause if they know they ain't gonna lose your vote over it, then they see no need to do anything 'cept pay lip service.

Did the 3rd party candidate, Perot, impact the results of that election? If so, how? In whose favor?

Of course it impacted it, and on many levels. As for whose favor in that particular election, I'd say that any unusual/unplanned factors can be considered in the favor of the winner and Clinton won it.

Any 3rd party now will help Obama in the same fashion. hence my position that a 3rd party vote is a vote for Obama

I got a few left-leaning pals that are voting for Jill Stein 'cause they are pissed off at Obama about quite a few of his stances & actions.

Are you really saying that they are actually voting for Obama regardless? Or irregardless. Or unregardless. I always forget which of those is the actual word.

Or are you thinking that Obama is gonna win in Nov, and thus anything unusual/unplanned...like a large 3rd Party showing at the polls...always favors the victor?; 9/28/12, 5:14 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Regardless" is the correct word.

Another word is "irrespective."

The confusion of these two produces "irregardless."

I'm voting for Jill Stein, myself.; 9/29/12, 8:41 AM
Robert Cook said...: As to the efficacy of voting for a third party candidate, the third party candidate may not win in a given election, but if enough people over enough time become disillusioned enough with the essentially inseparability of the two major parties from each other there may come a tipping point where a third party gains enough supporters that either the third party candidate may win and the third party itself become a major party, or, more likely, the third party candidate will exert such an influence on the campaign that one of the two major party candidates will moderate his or her positions to be closer to those positions of the third party candidate that are resonating with the electorate, or even adopt some of those positions outright.

In the short term, it allows me to vote, to declare that I care enough about the process to show up and cast a ballot, without having to vote for an execrable candidate, one whose positions and philosophies I deplore, or one whose actions in office have been criminal and which have furthered the actions of other criminals.

Who says we MUST vote for one of the two major parties? Can we say that we have even a convincingly fake "democracy" when it's taken as a given that we can only vote for one of two choices provided to us or that a third party candidate who appeals to a sufficiently large portion of the electorate is seen as "poaching" votes from one of the two major party candidates? Neither major party candidate is entitled to become President, and if a viable third party candidate comes along who influences the election, this is all the better for us as voters, and for the life of our termnally corrupt and effectively moribund political system.; 9/29/12, 9:01 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)